BIM ThinkSpace

Episode 12: BIM performance measurement

2009-09-27T21:27:49+10:00

After introducing the general differences between BIM Capability and BIM Maturity in Episode 11, I’ll briefly discuss some of the currently available and applicable maturity models[1]. The intention is to understand what other organisations and individuals have already achieved in this space and try to pin-point an appropriate performance-measurement model that can be adopted or modified to assess BIM competencies [2].

Why is this important? If BIM implementations by teams and organizations are to achieve the much touted increase in productivity, these implementations need to be measured, compared against some sort of industry benchmarks and – most importantly – independently certified. Without measurement, organizations offering design, construction or operations’ services have no basis on which to improve their processes and deliverables. Without benchmarks and certificates, clients aiming to employ these organizations have no consistent way of understanding their BIM competencies.

It is really a no-brainer that the AECO industry needs a specialized tool to assess BIM implementations in order to identify real BIM abilities from flagrant BIM wash. What requires real thought is [ONE] what BIM ‘metrics’ should this tool measure, [TWO] how to perform these measurements, and [THREE] how to certify measurement results so they can be trusted and depended upon for selecting project partners and/or improving BIM performance. This lengthy post will address a small part of the first question...

The initial step in identifying suitable metrics would be through searching for an existing and suitable performance measurement tool - rather than developing a new one from scratch - and then improve upon it. So, let’s have a quick look at some existing and applicable tools:

Applicable Maturity Models and Tools

A ‘maturity model’ is simply a set of performance improvement levels that can be achieved by an organisation or a project team. There are many maturity models which are relevant to our quest but I’ll only mention a few of them below:

1	COBIT, Control Objects for Information and related Technology – Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) and the IT Governance Institute (ITGI) - weblink.
2	CMMI, Capability Maturity Model Integration - Software Engineering Institute/ Carnegie Melon - weblink.
3	CSCMM, Construction Supply Chain Maturity Model - Vaidyanathan & Howell (2007) [3]
4	I-CMM, Interactive Capability Maturity Model developed as part of the National BIM Standard (NBIMS) Version 1 Part 1 - a project of the National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS), buildingSMARTalliance™ - weblink.
5	Indiana University BIM Proficiency Matrix - weblink (MS Excel File)
6	Knowledge Retention Maturity Levels - Arif, Egbu, Alom and Khalfan (2009) [4]
7	LESAT, Lean Enterprise Self-Assessment Tool - Lean Aerospace Initiative (LAI) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - weblink
8	P3M3, Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model – Office of Government Commerce (UK) - weblink
9	P-CMM®, People Capability Maturity Model v2 – Software Engineering Institute / Carnegie Melon - weblink
10	(PM)², Project Management Process Maturity Model - Kwak & Ibbs (2002) [5]
11	SPICE, Standardised Process Improvement for Construction Enterprises - Research Centre for the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford – Hutchinson & Finnemore (1999) [6]
12	Supply Chain Management Process Maturity Model and Business Process Orientation (BPO) maturity model - Lockamy III & McCormack (2004) [7]
...	...

Table 1. Sample Maturity Models of relevance to BIM

All the above ‘maturity models’ are relevant to the construction industry (there are many others as well) but only two so far have claimed the ability to measure BIM-specific maturity: NBIMS’ I-CMM and Indiana University’s BIM Proficiency Matrix [8]. Since Indiana University’s effort is fairly new and is not yet well documented, I will only review the I-CMM tool below:

A quick focus on the NBIMS maturity effort

Let’s start with the definition: the U.S. National Building Information Model Standard™ (NBIMS) establishes “standard definitions for building information exchanges to support critical business contexts using standard semantics and ontologies...[to be]..implemented in software". NBIM Standard Version 1 – Part 1 proposes a Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for “users to evaluate their business practices along a continuum or spectrum of desired technical level functionality... [and to measure] the degree to which a building information model implements a mature BIM Standard”[9].

There are two versions of NBIMS’ CMM. The first is a static table identifying 11 Areas of Interest (AOI) measured against 10 Levels of increasing maturity (Fig. 1). The second is the Interactive Capability Maturity Model (I-CMM), a multi-tab Microsoft Excel® workbook based on the static table and employing a point score against each AOI.

Fig.1. NBIMS CMM Chart (download the MS Excel file from http://bit.ly/NBIMS)

NBIMS’ I-CMM is based on the concept of Minimum BIM; that is, a project needs to achieve a minimum total score of maturity for it to be considered ‘true BIM’. When it was first released, the NBIM Standard, version 1 stated that “one should obtain a minimum score of 20 [points -weighted average] in order to consider true BIM maturity”. It however stressed that the minimum score is not fixed but is “dependent on the date the [the I-CMM tool] is used”. The minimum score can thus change yearly or “as the rhetorical bar is raised and owners demand more from the models being delivered” [10]. In fact, in the newer version of the Excel tool (v1.9), the Minimum BIM score has since been changed to 30 and lately to 40 points

Limitations within the NBIMS I-CMM tool

NBIMS’ maturity model and tool are still in their early days of development and may yet change significantly. However, both the model and tool have significant limitations which I will briefly discuss below [11]:

The I-CMM tool has been designed to be used as an “internal tool...[to]...determine the level of maturity of an individual BIM project as measured against a set of weighted criteria agreed to be desirable in a Building Information Model” [12] [13]. I-CMM focuses primarily on measuring BIM information management and “should not be used as a benchmark for any other metrics” [14] including those related to architectural, engineering, construction and management. Also, I-CMM is not intended to be used as a “tool to compare BIMs or BIM implementations” [15].

In addition to the above structural limitations, the I-CMM’s scoring system can theoretically generate different results (certificates) for the same BIM project if the tool is employed by different users or at different times. This is highlighted in how NBIMS ‘allows’ those who use the tool to modify AOI weighting according to their specific requirements (see page 79 of NBIMS v1, part 1). This variability in AOI’s weightings coupled with a ‘date-sensitive’ Minimum BIM score limit the tool’s reliability as well as its usability as an industry-wide, market-independent measurement tool.

The need for a comprehensive tool

If one spends enough time and energy to analyse the many strength and shortfalls of available maturity models, s/he soon realizes what is missing: a specialized BIM Capability and Maturity tool that can be used internally by organisation and externally by independent assessors, can measure all key metrics related to BIM, has a consistent scoring system and is equally applicable across markets, disciplines and organisational sizes.

Of course, it is not realistic to expect organizations to independently develop their own measurement tools and impose them on all others. It is also impractical to ask industry players to rely on tools developed by other industries and are unsuitable for measuring BIM. Finally, it is not useful to adopt existing tools that – although developed for BIM but - can neither measure all BIM indicators nor are consistent in their measurement.

So what is the solution to all this? Can a maturity model and a measurement tool be developed to detect ‘BIM wash’, measure ‘BIMness’ and allow trustworthy certification of organizations which invest, develop and maintain their BIM competency?

...

[1] The term ‘model’ in this post denotes ‘knowledge models’ not ‘object-based models’ as typically associated with BIM.

[2] BIM Competencies are the generic abilities that teams and organizations need to acquire as they adopt and improve upon their BIM technologies, processes and policies. These competencies include technical (e.g. exchanging model data) and non-technical abilities (e.g. virtual team management) but all are important to move from Pre-BIM to IPD through a systematic and measurable approach. BIM Competencies are grouped in sets which are employed to establish either Capability or Maturity benchmarks. I’ll discuss BIM Competencies in a future post.

[3] Vaidyanathan, K., & Howell, G. (2007). Construction Supply Chain Maturity Model - Conceptual Framework, International Group For Lean Construction (IGLC-15). Michigan, USA.

[4] Arif, M., Egbu, C., Alom, O., & Khalfan, M. M. A. (2009). Measuring knowledge retention: a case study of a construction consultancy in the UAE. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16(1), 92-108.

[5] Kwak, Y. H., & Ibbs, W. C. (2002). Project Management Process Maturity (PM)2 Model. ASCE, Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(3), 150-155.

[6] Hutchinson, A., & Finnemore, M. (1999). Standardized process improvement for construction enterprises. Total Quality Management, 10, 576-583.

[7] Lockamy III, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 272-278.

[8] Indiana University BIM Proficiency Matrix includes 8 categories measured against 4 maturity/proficiency levels. The matrix appears to focus on the accuracy and richness of the digital model (as an end-product) and has little focus on the process of creating that model. More information is available at http://bit.ly/iuBIM. Thank you to Dr. Umit Isikdag (University of Salford - UK) for bringing this effort to my attention.

[9] NIST. (2007). National Building Information Modeling Standard - Version 1.0 - Part 1: Overview, principles and Methodologies: National Institute of Building Sciences (Page 75).

[10] Same as above – Page 72

[11] I will be reviewing the NBIMS CMM and I-CMM in more detail as part of my upcoming chapter ‘BIM Maturity Matrix’ in the Handbook of Research on Building Information Modeling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies (http://bit.ly/BIMhandbook).

[12] See AECbytes Viewpoint #33 (December 6, 2007), http://bit.ly/AECbytes1.

[13] Suermann, P. C., Issa, R. R. A., & McCuen, T. L. (2008). Validation of the U.S. National Building Information Modeling Standard Interactive Capability Maturity Model 12th International Conference on Computing In Civil and Building Engineering, October 16-18. Beijing, China.

[14] NIST. (2007). National Building Information Modeling Standard - Version 1.0 - Part 1: Overview, principles and Methodologies: National Institute of Building Sciences (Page 80).

[15] Same as endnote 10.

BIM Episode 11: The difference between BIM Capability and BIM Maturity

2009-06-03T23:44:03+10:00

The Story

Let’s start with a short story about two AEC organisations that – once upon a time – decided to adopt Building Information Modelling. Both organisations were mid-sized firms, operated within the same market and had the same mix of disciplines. Both were able to undertake large Design and Construct (Design and Build) projects of value exceeding $200m within the Health Sector. But this is where the similarities ended:

The Yellow Organisation decided to invest substantial energy and money to acquire object-based software (say Revit®, Tekla® or Vico®). This decision came after a group of enthusiastic and technology-savvy staff succeeded in convincing management to trial BIM. These ‘champions’ then organised and undertook the necessary training as recommended by their BIM software retailer and supplemented their learning by sieving through countless online forums. After a handful of months, a few setbacks and a couple of successful pilot projects, this group of individuals – now considered superheroes by some of their peers and computer-hugging fools by others – stood ready to implement what they’ve learned across the organisation. New BIM components where generated on-the-job and novel standards/processes started to slowly push out existing CAD practices. The management, now excited about the commercial possibilities of the new deliverables, instructed its marketing people to inject BIM images and labels into Yellow’s corporate website and to start informing potential clients about their new abilities.

The Blue Organisation invested substantial time and energy in investigating, developing and then gradually implementing an overall BIM strategy, tailored training plans, modelling standards and workflow protocols. Internal and external help were sought to communicate, train as well as educate staff [1] about BIM technologies and processes. The management team, after leading this implementation effort from day zero, succeeded in getting all staff enthusiastic and engaged in developing BIM products and processes. They continuously conducted internal assessments to ensure that their BIM productivity is sufficiently stable and that they can predictably and uniformly deliver high-quality models and drawings. Convinced that BIM is the only efficient way to deliver services, they allowed their marketing people to inject BIM images and labels into Blue’s corporate website and to start informing potential clients about their new abilities.

End of short story...

Now, from an onlooker’s point of view (a client for example) both organisations appear equally qualified, just as able to deliver the promise of BIM....But they’re not equally qualified – far from it. These two organisations demonstrate a significant problem in identifying the difference between BIM Capability - the ability to generate BIM deliverables and services, from BIM Maturity - the extent, depth, quality, predictability and repeatability of these BIM deliverables and services.

Let’s have another look at the above organisations using two different lenses:

#	Yellow Organisation	Blue Organisation
1	Uses Object-based software tools	Also uses Object-based software tools
2	Can collaborate internally using multi-disciplinary object-based models	Same as left...
3	Can deliver at least one large BIM project of construction value exceeding $200m	Same as left...
4	Has experience in the Health Sector	Same as left...
5	...	...
*Quick Conclusion:* the Yellow and Blue organisation have very similar BIM Capability

Table 1. Comparing the two organisations using a BIM Capability lens

#	Yellow Organisation	Blue Organisation
1	Bottom-Up initial BIM approach	Top-Down initial BIM approach
2	Champion-lead implementation	Management-lead implementation
3	No evidence of overall BIM strategy	Overall Strategy preceded implementation
4	No evidence of internal communication about BIM implementation efforts	There is evidence of internal communication as part of the BIM implementation effort
5	Standards were learned, developed and extended on the go	Standards and workflows where readied prior to wide implementation
6	Evidence of change-resistance (cynicism)	Evidence of wide-spread enthusiasm
7	No evidence of skill/knowledge assessment	Evidence of skill/knowledge assessment
8	....	....
*Quick Conclusion:* the Blue organisation has higher BIM Maturity than the Yellow one (this conclusion will be explained in more detail in the next one or two blog posts)

Table 2. Comparing the two organisations using a BIM Maturity lens

Capability is thus a notion quite different to Maturity...I'll quickly expand on this a bit more by re-discussing BIM Capability before directly jumping into the more intricate topic of BIM Maturity:

BIM Capability, a reminder

As explored in Episode 8, three ‘capability’ Stages are needed to pass from pre-BIM status to IPD. These Stages represent revolutionary changes (as opposed to evolutionary mutations) and are characterised by reaching a milestone or achieving minimum proficiency. For example, an organisation is considered to have reached BIM Capability Stage 1 by the relative easiness of deploying an object-based software. BIM Capability Stage 2 is reached when an organisation undertakes model-based multi-disciplinary collaboration. Finally, BIM Capability Stage 3 is reached when an organisation undertakes network-based, interdisciplinary model integration. In essence, the three BIM Stages are useful in identifying the minimum abilities of organisations and project teams but are not that useful in analysing or comparing how well they model, collaborate or integrate their deliverables.

Organisation which are not aware of the above capability progression usually refer to themselves as generically ‘BIM able’ as soon as they deploy a few copies of ArchiCAD, Tekla or Bentley Architecture. So how can individuals, organisational teams, organisations and project teams rate their own performance or that of their potential partners or competitors? How can clients filter out BIM wash from BIM reality? They need – we all need – some kind of ‘tool’ that can be applied to define, measure and hopefully improve these BIM abilities [2].

BIM Maturity

The concept of Maturity is not new and have existed for some time in many other industries but the most potent representation of this concept came from the software industry’s Capability Maturity Model. CMM is actually a ‘process improvement framework’ originally intended as a tool to evaluate the ability of government contractors to perform a software project. It was developed in the late 80s for the benefit of the US Department of Defence [3]. It’s successor, the more comprehensive Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), continues to be developed and extended by the Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

Capability Maturity Models identify a set of standardised process improvement levels (or maturity levels) which allow implementers to achieve significant business benefits. Research into CMM has already identified the correlation between process maturity and business performance [4]. The use of maturity models is thought to lead to increased productivity and Return On Investment (ROI) as well as reduced costs and post-delivery defects [5]&[6].

The ‘original’ CMM is specific to the software industry and is not applicable to construction as it does not address supply chain issues and its maturity levels do not account for the different phases of a project lifecycle [7]. Although there are a few – some are extensive efforts - which focus on the construction industry, there is no comprehensive model that can be applied to BIM, its implementation stages, players, deliverables or its effect on project lifecycle phases.

I’ll leave it here now....In the next couple of Episodes, I’ll discuss currently available and applicable Maturity Models (including the one by NBIMS) followed by a new BIM Maturity Index which I think you’ll find interesting...

[1] “Education is about learning for oneself, and training is about learning for the sake of someone else” as beautifully summarised by Dr. Megan Squire after analysing this Monthly Review article.

[2] The full quality axiom dictates that "what cannot be defined, cannot be measured; what cannot be measured cannot be improved, and what cannot be improved will eventually deteriorate” (Dr. Daniel Meade, bettermanagement.com)

[3] Hutchinson, A., & Finnemore, M. (1999). Standardized process improvement for construction enterprises. Total Quality Management, 10, 576-583.

[4] Lockamy III, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 272-278.

[5] Jaco, R. (2004). Developing an IS/ICT management capability maturity framework, Proceedings of the 2004 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries. Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa: South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists.

[6] Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Garcia, S. M., Chrissis, M. B., & Bush, M. (1993). Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model - Version 1.1 (Technical Report): Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

[7] Sarshar, M., Haigh, R., Finnemore, M., Aouad, G., Barrett, P., Baldry, D., et al. (2000). SPICE: a business process diagnostics tool for construction projects. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management, 7(3), 241-250.

The BIM Framework: an Academic Perspective

2009-03-19T10:44:06+11:00

Many of ThinkSpace’s readers are academically-oriented and may be interested to know that the BIM Framework has now been published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Automation in Construction (Volume 18, Issue 3). The Framework is the basis of most BIM episodes published so far and has allowed the generation of many BIM implementation and evaluation tools (more about that in future posts). Below is the paper’s abstract in both textual and visual forms:

Textual Abstract: “Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an expansive knowledge domain within the Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Operations (AECO) industry. To allow a systematic investigation of BIM's divergent fields, its knowledge components must be defined and expanding boundaries delineated. This paper explores some of the publicly available international guidelines and introduces the BIM Framework, a research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. This is a ‘scene-setting’ paper identifying many conceptual parts (fields, stages, steps and lenses), providing examples of their application and listing some of the Framework's deliverables. This paper also identifies and deploys visual knowledge models and a specialised ontology to represent domain concepts and their relations”.

Visual Abstract: visualisations reduce complexity; please click on the image below to open a higher-resolution image:

I regret that I cannot share the actual paper with the blog’s subscribers due to copyright restrictions. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need further information or clarifications.

Technorati Tags: BIM,Research,Academic,Journal,Framework,Stages,Steps,Lenses,Project Lifecycle Phases,Data Flows,Modelling,Collaboration,Integration,IPD,Ontology,Visualisation,Visual Models

Effects of BIM On Project Lifecycle Phases

2008-11-24T21:57:25+11:00

The BIM Episodes: Episode 10

A construction project passes through multiple phases from inception to demolition. These phases are typically referred to as Project Lifecycle Phases (PLPs) and include pre-construction activities like programming, cost planning as well as post-construction activities like occupancy and facility maintenance. Lifecycle phases can be delineated in a few ways but I have personally adopted a simplified subdivision as follows:

Construction projects pass through three major lifecycle phases: Design [D], Construction [C] and Operations [O]. These phases are also subdivided into sub-phases (Table 1) which are in turn further subdivided into activities, sub-activities and tasks.

Design Phase	Construction Phase	Operations Phase
D1: conceptualisation, programming and cost planning	C1: construction planning and construction detailing	O1: occupancy and operations
D2: architectural, structural and systems design	C2: construction, manufacturing and procurement	O2: asset management and facility maintenance
D3: analysis, detailing, coordination and specification	C3: commissioning, as-built and handover	O3: decommissioning and major re-programming

Table 1: Project Lifecycle Phases and sub-Phases

As an example of further subdivision, the Design phase [D] includes Architectural, Structural and Systems Design sub-phase [D1], which includes an Architectural Design activity [D1.1], which includes the Conceptualisation sub-activity [D1.1a] which lastly includes a 3D Modelling task [D1.1a.01]. The usefulness of these subdivisions will not be too evident in this blog post but just remember that BIM implementations can and will affect construction projects at Phase, Task and everything in between. For now we’ll just focus on the effects of BIM on Phases and I’ll discuss the effects of BIM on smaller lifecycle subdivisions in later posts.

BIM Stage 1: Object-Based Modelling

As a reminder, BIM implementation is initiated through the deployment of an ‘object-based 3D parametric software tool’ similar to ArchiCAD®, Revit®, Digital Project® and Tekla®. At Stage 1, users generate single-disciplinary models within either design [D], construction [C] or operation [O] – the three Project Lifecycle Phases. These models - like architectural design models [D] and duct fabrication models [C] - are primarily used to automate the generation and coordination of 2D documentation and 3D visualisations. Other deliverables of Stage 1 models include basic data exports (ex: door schedules, concrete quantities, FFE costs,...) and light-weight 3D models (ex: 3D DWF, 3D PDF, NWD, etc...) which have no modifiable parametric attributes. However, the ‘semantic’ nature of object-based models and their ‘hunger’ for early and detailed resolution of design and construction matters encourage ‘fast-tracking’ of Project Lifecycle Phases (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 1 – linear model

Figure 1 above depicts how object-based modelling encourages fast-tracking: when a project is still executed in a phased manner yet design and construction activities are overlapped to save time [2]. That is, after achieving maturity within Stage 1 implementations, BIM players will acknowledge the benefits of engaging other design and construction players with similar modelling capabilities. Such acknowledgement and subsequent action will lead them to BIM Stage 2, model-based collaboration.

BIM Stage 2: Model-Based Collaboration

Having developed single-disciplinary modelling expertise through Stage 1 implementations, Stage 2 players actively collaborate with other disciplinary players. This may occur in many technological ways according to each player’s selection of BIM software tools.

Model-based collaboration can occur within one or between two Project Lifecycle Phases. Examples of this include the Design-Design interchange of architectural and structural models [DD], the Design-Construction interchange of structural and steel models [DC] and the Design-Operations interchange of architectural and facility maintenance models [DO]. Stage 2 maturity also alters the granularity of modelling performed at each lifecycle phase as higher-detail construction models move forward and replace (partially or fully) lower-detail design models (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 2 – linear model

Figure 2 above depicts how model-based collaboration is a factor in instigating fast-tracking and changing relative modelling intensity within each lifecycle phase. The overlap depicted is driven by construction players increasingly providing design-related services as part of their Stage 2 offerings and design players increasingly adding construction and procurement information into their design models. Also, changes in semantic richness across lifecycle phases occur as detailed construction and fabrication models (ex: steel detailing and duct fabrication models) partially replace the more generic upstream structural and mechanical design models.

BIM Stage 3: Network-Based Integration

In this stage semantically-rich integrated models are created, shared and maintained collaboratively across Project Lifecycle Phases. This integration can be achieved through model server technologies (using proprietary, open or non-proprietary formats), single / integrated / distributed / federated databases [1,3] and/or SaaS (Software as a Service) solutions [4]. From a process perspective, synchronous interchange of model and document-based data cause project lifecycle phases to overlap extensively forming a phase-less process (Fig.3).

Fig. 3. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 3 – linear model

Figure 3 above depicts how network-based integration causes ‘concurrent construction’: a term used when “all project activities are integrated and all aspects of design, construction, and operation are concurrently planned to maximize the value of objective functions while optimising constructability, operability and safety” [2].

In summary, object-based modelling will first blur the lines separating different project lifecycle phases. As model-based collaboration takes hold, lifecycle players start moving into each other’s territory. Finally, as network-based integration becomes the norm, design, construction and operations overlap extensively if not totally.

Note on terms used within Figures:

A BIM data exchange is when a BIM player exports or imports data that is neither structured nor computable. A typical example of data exchange is the export of 2D CAD drawings out of 3D object-based models resulting in significant loss of geometric and semantic data.
A BIM data interchange (or interoperable exchange) is when a BIM player exports and imports data that is structured and computable by another application. Interchanges assume ‘adequate interoperability’ between the sender and receiver systems.

References

[1] Bentley, Does the Building Industry Really Need to Start Over - A Response from Bentley to Autodesk's BIM-Revit Proposal for the Future, http://www.laiserin.com/features/bim/bentley_bim_whitepaper.pdf, last accessed July 12, 2008

[2] A. Jaafari, Concurrent Construction and Life Cycle Project Management, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 123 (4) (1997) 427-436.

[3] J. Liaserin, Building Information Modeling - The Great Debate, http://www.laiserin.com/features/bim/index.php, last accessed July 12, 2008

[4] P. Wilkinson, SaaS-based BIM, http://www.extranetevolution.com/extranet_evolution/2008/04/saas-based-bim.html, last accessed July 12, 2008

The BIM Episodes: Episode 9

2008-06-04T22:49:10+10:00

EPISODE 9: BIM STEPS

This post is about BIM Steps, those micro changes needed to implement Building Information Modelling within an organisation and then - by osmosis - throughout the whole industry. But before we introduce BIM Steps and in response to feedback received, I’ll partially revisit the BIM Stages topic (Episode 8) in an effort to invite more discussion.

BIM Adoption: Stages and Steps

The adoption of BIM by an organisation will not happen unintentionally and definitely not in a single giant leap. In fact, it will be deployed through intentional decisions passing through major milestones referred to as BIM Stages. These stages – if well defined - are very useful to understand BIM concepts and visions but are - on their own - not usable in implementation. Further subdivisions are needed: smaller incremental changes that each organisation can make to reach each major Stage, mature within it and then attempt to reach another. These ‘feetstones’ or micro objectives are called BIM Steps. The difference between BIM Stages and Steps is that stages are radical or transformational changes while steps are incremental/evolutionary changes or maturity levels.

But why do we need to define stages to start with?

Need for BIM Stages

BIM Stages - as introduced in BIM ThinkSpace Episode 8 - are part of a ‘BIM Framework’ and an underlying ‘BIM Theory’. I will not burden the blog readers with these but I want to highlight that Stage numbers, their definitions and underlying structures are based on ‘something’ more elaborate than a personal experience. The importance of BIM Stages lies in their observed ability to facilitate BIM deployment within organisations and – more generally - allow different industry stakeholders to:

Agree on a common vision (any defined vision can be agreed upon; undefined visions cannot...)
Generate a simplified implementation roadmap for organisations to follow
Simplify BIM terminology around fewer headings
Identify incremental and achievable steps between major stages
Provide benchmarks for business improvement
Allow organisations to assess themselves and others

To generate the above optimistic deliverables, BIM Stages have been structured using five relentless rules – stages must be:

Well defined (non-overlapping): BIM Stages should be unambiguous and non-contradictory. For example, an implementation step cannot exist in two Stages at the same time.
Generically Applicable: BIM Stages should apply equally to all disciplines, across all project lifecycle phases (Design, Construction and Operations) and throughout the industry’s hierarchy. So, whether you’re an owner, architect, engineer, contractor, sub-contractor or facility manager – BIM Stages should apply equally to you. They should also apply equally to teams, organisations and the whole Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Operations (AECO) industry.
Revolutionary (non-evolutionary): BIM Stages are transformational or radical changes NOT incremental changes, usage types or maturity levels.
Linear: BIM Stages are logical progressions and cannot be skipped.
Cumulative: deliverables of one BIM Stage can be carried forward to the next Stage

Three BIM Stages: a reminder

As a reminder (please read Episode 8 before continuing), BIM implementation or BIM maturity levels can be subdivided into three consecutive stages:

BIM Stage 1: object-based modelling or MODELLING for short
BIM Stage 2: model-based collaboration or just COLLABORATION
BIM Stage 3: network-based integration or just INTEGRATION

Figure 1: BIM Stages - definitions

Which finally brings us back to BIM Steps, the main topic of this post...

BIM Steps: an introduction

The distance separating each of the above BIM Stages is quite large judging by the amount of changes expected at both organisational and industry levels. However, the passage from Pre-BIM to BIM Stage 1 and through each of the three stages is populated by many smaller steps that can be identified and thus fulfilled by willing organisations. These steps are either pre-empt a stage or are maturity levels within each of the stages.

Different step sets

The collection of steps that each organisation needs to fulfil to reach or mature within a BIM Stage across the continuum from pre-BIM to Integrated Project Delivery is driven by different perquisites for, challenges within and deliverables of each stage. It is therefore important to identify these different step sets:

A steps from pre-BIM Status (fixed starting point) leading to BIM Stage 1
B steps from BIM Stage 1 maturing towards BIM Stage 2
C steps from BIM Stage 2 maturing towards BIM Stage 3
D steps are maturity levels within Stage 3 leading to Integrated Project Delivery – a continuously evolving target!

Figure 2: BIM Stages – step sets

Different Step types

Although many attributes of BIM innovation appear technological in nature, most changes demanded by its implementation do in fact relate to processes and policies (Episode 7). As an example, before achieving ‘database integration’ - an attribute of BIM Stage 3 - certain standards, procedures and data channels need to be available. Therefore, in order to generate adequate guides to fulfil implementation steps, it is important to differentiate between these challenges as each demands a different approach.

There are three types of steps leading to or transitioning between BIM stages:

Technology Steps

Technology Steps are milestones in software, hardware and networks. For example, the availability of a BIM tool allows the migration from drafting-based to object-based workflow (BIM Stage 1)

Process Steps

Process Steps are Leadership, Infrastructure, Human Resources and Products/Services. For example, collaboration procedures and database-sharing skills are necessary to allow model-based collaboration (BIM Stage 2).

Policy Steps

Policy Steps are contractual, regulatory and preparatory changes. For example, alliance-based and risk-sharing contractual agreements are pre-requisites to achieving integrated practices (BIM Stage 3).

Figure 3: BIM Stages – step sets

Final Note

This staged and stepped approach to BIM implementation will benefit organisations as it allows them to optimise their efforts and prioritise their actions. Each BIM Stage will act as (1) a place to start from, (2) a goal to aspire to or (3) a milestone along the way to Integrated Project Delivery (or whatever the industry considers to be its ultimate BIM-driven goal). The identification of smaller steps between stages will allow organisations to plan their next move, select their own change-pace and thus reach their aspired maturity levels with much less anguish, cost and frustration...

For Feedback, please comment below or click here...Thank you

BIM News Bits - Interesting Developments

2008-05-24T23:17:15+10:00

I try not to to blog industry news but sometimes it feels 'irresponsible' not to do so. However, I'll follow the three BIM Nodes logic in my reporting:

On the Technology front: the emergent Microsoft Live Mesh technology deserves some attention... Would an enterprise version enable a different approach to BIM Integration (Stage 3) alongside Model Servers and what I term BIMaaS (BIM as a Service - read this and that)? It's too early to tell but its a space worth monitoring with wide-open BIM eyes.

On the Process side, I've been invited to have a look at the Build London Live effort. I'm personally not into grand gestures but I do think such efforts play a valuable role in promoting BIM Thinking within a decreasingly skeptical industry. In fact, I would love to include a couple of clients in a BIMStorm™ if it hits the Asia-Pacific!

On the BIM Policy front, an excellent effort by the AIA and I couldn't but reproduce the news:

"On May 15th 2008 the AIA released two new model agreements for integrated project delivery. The documents follow concepts in Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide, and provide two levels of design and construction integration. One is a transitional agreement for those less familiar with IPD; the second, a “single purpose entity”, offers a fully integrated way to deliver a project. Get more information about the IPD documents at http://aiacontractdocuments.org/ipd/."

In summary, the above three bits vary in importance but are all equally welcome BIM News. To achieve integrated project delivery, integrated design solutions or whatever you want to call the BIM climax, a great number of technology, process and policy steps are needed...Which reminds me, I need to upload Episode 9: understanding BIM Steps sometime soon...

BIM and the Process Improvement Movement

2008-05-02T20:55:06+10:00

It gives me pleasure to introduce a guest author to BIM ThinkSpace – Sohail Razvi. Through the wonders of web-based professional networking, I met Sohail and we started a discussion that continues to date. This is Sohail's first web contribution into the topic and I'm delighted he's chosen BIM ThinkSpace for his well-thought piece. The below article explores a new angle into BIM Framework generation as Sohail argues how it could develop around a set of well established, measurable and institutionalised framework, the CMMI…You can download this 8-page article as a PDF file (317KB) from here.

BIM and the Process Improvement Movement

Building a case for a combined BIM-CMMI Framework

Introduction

The Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Facilities Management (AEC/FM) industry is almost certainly the only functionally-critical (and highly regulated) industry that builds its prototypes live on the production line. This is mostly still done without the benefits of digital modeling, prototyping and simulations as many peer industries have done (think of the car and aerospace industries for example). The consequences of working without such models are apparent, at times painfully, to anyone who has financed, built, owned, designed or operated a piece of built environment of any size or function.

Other major industries have quickly recognized the immense power of constructing and testing a virtual prototype of their product designs through digital techniques before ‘going live’. This ‘prototyping behavior’ has required an immense amount of effort by these industries to get their act together yet allowed their services and products to be repeatedly delivered to clients with dependable quality, timing and cost. In so many industries, the ability to manage and control an increasingly complex ‘product’ throughout its lifecycle is dependent on highly systemized processes and efficiencies acquired through digital technology.

Background

The unique character of the AEC/FM industry spans both the delivery of construction products as well as pre- and post production services offered to its clientele/consumers. The resulting product - delivered through numerous channels - is a product that affects people, institutions, the environment, and is the sine qua non for many stakeholders’ bottom-lines.

In a recent commentary on their research covering these changes, authors Yoo, Boland and Lyytinen, (AECbytes Viewpoint #36 March 13, 2008) propose that:

“…digital technology (is) revolutionizing the AEC industry. Powerful 3-D visualization tools, combined with increasingly sophisticated digital modeling systems and centralized databases enable radically new ways of coordination among the many actors in an AEC project. Building Information Management (BIM) systems provide an integrated platform through which digitized construction and design information from diverse sources can be effectively communicated and coordinated. Digital tools to manage costs and schedules are being integrated into BIM systems, and supporting technologies like wireless networks, intelligent sensors, mobile computing and digital measurement systems are also being integrated with these systems to take full advantage of emerging digital infrastructures. The integrated use of digital technologies can significantly decrease cost and mitigate risks on complex projects, while enabling architects and builders to explore innovative building designs and new construction methods and materials.” ⁵

It is understood that as the AEC/FM industry transforms itself into an intensely software centric paradigm, the ground rules (profoundly and unavoidably) have to get a make over as well. These transformations require vigilant and creative thinking and consideration:

· How the actors will come together and interact

· How the technology will affect the methodologies involved in the running and delivery of projects and

· Where and how the risks will be mitigated.

Considerable work in this area has been done in other industries and is currently being done within the AEC industry in Australia, Europe and the United States. These ground breaking efforts are being conducted by entities like the CRC-Construction Innovation, in Australia (check Sydney Opera Houses FM Exemplar), National Institute of Building Sciences in the USA (developers of the National BIM Standards to streamline and regulate the delivery of building projects), International Alliance for Interoperability ( the developers of the IFC, IDM, etc), the American Institute of Architects (published Version 1 of the Integrated Project Delivery Guide in 2007) and many others.

In contemplating the immensity of this undertaking, to bring about fundamental changes to the industry, one of the early and essential tasks that needs to be undertaken - I would venture - is to study how other industries have handled these changes and, as a result, shifted their performance to a higher level of maturity, quality, production and delivery of products and services.

In this essay, I would however like to focus on a single area (and there are many others) of operations within the entire gamut of the AEC/FM operational disciplines: the business processes and methodologies that lead to high quality design and delivery of the construction product. It is in this context that I have considered the concepts of a ‘BIM Framework’ presented on this website in the series titled ‘BIM Episodes’ by Bilal Succar.

I would further argue that there exist many tested frameworks, that are being utilised to immense advantage by many other industries, that can also be developed and adapted to the AEC/FM industry. I would also venture in saying that there is good reason to study, define and perhaps modify the BIM Framework in the context of these tested frameworks. To further present this view, I have provided below a graphical illustration of just such a model that has been adopted by many well known organisations like Raytheon, IBM, Hitachi as well as relatively lesser-known software houses like 3H Technology and TrialStat Corporation in the USA to improve the quality of their operations, products and services delivered to clients.

The CMMI Framework – An Introduction ^{1, 2}

The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) was developed by the Software Engineering Institute and the Carnegie Mellon University over many years. This started in 1986 as a response to the disconnect between engineering and business processes in the delivery of products or services. In its latest iteration, this framework has evolved into the ‘Capability Maturity Model^® Integration’ – the CMMI^®.

The CMMI is a process improvement model for the development of products and services. It consists of guidance for implementing practices that address development and maintenance activities covering the product lifecycle from inception, through design, to production, delivery and maintenance. It helps integrate and institutionalize these activities into the organizations’ collective knowledge so the processes can be (1) repeated with similar quality of results and (2) monitored for continued improvement. The application of CMMI has, with time, extended to industries outside the software development industry into banking, aerospace, car manufacturing, electronics to name a few. For this reason the SEI has continued to develop the applicability of its model to other industries. For example it’s currently extending the CMMI model to cover organizations delivering services rather than products ⁴. This will allow the model to cover activities required to establish, manage and deliver these services. In doing that the CMMI draws upon concepts and practices from other service-focused standards and models including Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL), ISO/IEC 20000: Information Technology – Service Management, Control Objects for Information and related Technology (COBIT) and Information Technology Services CMM (ITSCMM).

Key to understanding the CMMI is the idea of process maturity. When a process is identified, understood, defined and measured, it ‘matures’. This means that it can be managed, revised, its defects eliminated and its effectiveness measured. Some of the benefits of implementing the CMMI framework in an organization or industry are:

Creation of an explicit link between business objectives and design and engineering activities
Expansion of scope and visibility of engineering activities and service activities throughout the lifecycle of the project to ensure they meet customer expectations
Incorporation of additional areas of best practices where lessons learned from measurement methods, risk management and supplier management are included.
Identification of organizational functions critical to successful products and services
Better compliance with relevant ISO standards - where desired or applicable

The Premise

There are two fundamental ideas to be considered relating to the principles of process maturity.

First, does product quality benefit from using well-established configuration of processes and methodologies? In other words, is there even a need for such a framework in order to develop, build and maintain a product or service?

In the AEC/FM context, products can be tangible or intangible:

Tangible products are those manufactured or built (example a facility or its components)
Intangible products are those services that allow the product to be designed, constructed and maintained – similar to architectural design or facilities management services

It is now recognized³ through the experiences of many organizations that the implementations of tested Process Maturity models (similar to those promoted by the SEI) are highly beneficial:

The quality of a system (AEC/FM product or a service) is highly influenced by the quality of the process used to acquire, develop, and maintain it.
Process improvement increases product and service quality as organizations apply it to achieve their business objectives.
Process improvement objectives are in fact aligned with business objectives

There are many process areas in the CMMI framework that can enhance the AEC/FM processes and activities, for example:

Planning, Tracking and Schedule Management
Requirements Definition and Configuration Control
Quality Measurement and Continuous Improvement
Process Assessment
Evolutionary (continuous) Process Improvement
Design Tracking and Management: this process area does not explicitly exist in the CMMI framework but is encapsulated in process areas called ‘Technical Solutions’ and ‘Product Integration’. Also, additional pieces are embedded in ‘Configuration Management’ and ‘Requirements Management’ process areas. Given the fundamental, cross-disciplinary and iterative nature of the design activity within the industry, a new process area dealing exclusively with Design Tracking and Management activities may be needed.

As you can gather, the emphasis is on ‘process improvement’ and the goal is to move from ill-defined and ad hoc, immature processes to demonstrably mature ones with improved quality and effectiveness.

Second, it stands to reason that we persistently need to monitor and measure results from implementing these processes in order to continuously improve them. Product and service performance improvement is not achievable without measurement and analysis. To achieve long-term business successes, it is essential to deploy an effective measurement and analysis program within organisations. This is required at several organizational levels and are partially addressed in the CMMI framework:

Enterprise level – which affects the long term survival of the business (not covered by CMMI)
Process level – the efficiency and effectiveness of organizations in accomplishing work
Project level – realization of specific products or services for a specific customer or class of customers
Product level – resolution of technical aspects of products or services necessary to meet customers’ requirements.

This highlights the question: can the above described CMMI approach be of benefit to the AEC/FM industry as it undergoes its current BIM-driven transformations?

It is clear that the world of facility design, construction and operations is increasing in complexity. This is brought about by multiple competing design/ownership factors including security, technology, sustainability, new materials as well as emerging space-usage concepts and configurations. The complexity is also increased as the end constructed product is necessarily the accumulation of factors and efforts by many disciplines and industries. In order for all these to work together, an overarching framework of best practices is essential to eliminate barriers and bottlenecks within the industry. The CMMI framework may well provide such an “opportunity to eliminate these through integrated models that transcend disciplines”. The focus can thus be holistic and focused on the design, construction and maintenance of the ‘product’ throughout its lifecycle.

The case for a BiCMM Framework?

The discussions generated by the BIM Episodes are a step in the right direction. In Episode 7 of the series, the author introduced a ‘BIM Framework’ using a Venn Diagram of the three nodes: Policy, Process and Technology (reproduced below with the author’s permission). Contained within this illustration is an intriguing idea: what does the overlap in the Venn diagram represent? I would like to think that this overlie contains common characteristics between the three nodes and that it represents the ‘bonding agent’ holding it all together. I propose identifying this bonding agent as a ‘Building Information Capability Maturity Model’ (BiCMM).

The BiCMM framework of process improvement and maturity will ensure that Policies, Technologies and Business Practices used in the design, delivery and maintenance of Capital Facilities are organized in a manner that is not ‘stove-piped’ (as has been the tradition in our industry - where each discipline has had minimal cross-disciplinary interaction and collaboration, each working within their vertical stove-pipes). Given the iterative nature of the design activity, eliminating this behaviour will therefore create value for all stakeholders.

I will further propose that this framework can and should be developed around a set of well established, measurable and institutionalized practices available for study and analysis. A structure is required to organize the AEC/FM processes already in practice and new ones that need to be introduced as a result of BIM-driven transformations. It is essential that these practices be defined, controlled, monitored and improved upon on a continuous basis. This will have the potential of becoming an industry-wide standard framework which, when implemented in AEC/FM organisations, will measure their level of maturity and thus capability in delivering consistent results.

This organizational structure is available and can be adopted from the CMMI Framework. It is instructive to note that the BIM Framework’s ‘Three Nodes: Process, Policy and Technology’ (refer to Episode 8) are significantly similar to CMMI’s ‘Three Critical Dimensions’ of Process, People and Technology. Figure 1 below illustrates this point.

Figure 1

So what should be done to generate the ‘BiCMM’ Framework being proposed here and how can that be based on the proven process improvement principles like CMMI? I will suggest the following actions:

First, there is a need to conduct a study to formally compile and document existing industry processes and methodologies. This will serve as a starting point and will generate a clearer direction to follow.
Second, this should be followed by a ‘Gap Analysis’ study to (a) determine the need for improvement within existing processes and (b) identify required new processes. This will be followed by an attempt to cast these into a CMMI frame of reference.
Third, this will then prompt the creation of new Process Areas on top of those currently existing within the CMMI framework to serve the exacting needs of the AEC/FM industry.
And finally, guided by the CMMI experience, ‘Maturity Levels’ can be defined for these new and/or improved processes through well defined, measurable and monitored BIM Stages (refer to BIM Episodes - Episode 5) which will ultimately include all the three levels of technology, processes and policy.

Conclusion

There is much ‘business wisdom’ in working towards developing an industry specific framework to bring the AEC/FM in alignment with the constellation of industries that have already benefited from process improvement approaches. It is highly possible that, in the near future, industry clients may request services from AEC/FM players while demanding evidence of systemic operational efficiency. It is also possible that major clients (like governments and large facility owners/operators) will one day consider the adoption of frameworks - similar to CMMI and ITIL - a prerequisite for accepting proposals from designers, builders and other consultants. In fact, it is even possible to predict that such a day is fast approaching. In anticipation of that stipulation, we should start building the BiCMM framework with some urgency. Judging by benefits reaped by other industries, the rewards of adopting a process improvement framework may be too great to ignore or postpone.

Sohail Razvi

Sohail Razvi is an architect by education and training. He has spent twelve years in architectural practice before moving into the information technology field as a Computer Aided Facilities Management (CAFM) Analyst. He has provided consultancy in various capacities and on a wide variety of large and small projects. He has undertaken business & technology process analyses in the design and management of CAFM systems. As a natural extension to both these areas he is now pursuing consultancy and research in the area of BIM driven activities in the AEC/FM Industry. Sohail is currently focused on Process Maturity, Process Improvement and Quality Management issues in the information technology field and is researching applying the principles and concepts from this industry to the AEC/FM space as it undergoes changes.

He currently lives and works in the USA and plans to return to Perth later this the year, to take up a position with Advanced Spatial Technologies (ASt) to head their BIM Operations and Integration activities.

References & Bibliography

1. Chrissis, M. B., Konrad, Konrad, M. & Shrum, S. (2007) CMMI Second Edition: Guidelines for Process Integration and Improvement.

2. CMMI Product Team (2006) CMMI for Development V 1.2

3. Gibson, D.L, Goldenson, D.R. & Kost, Keith (2006) Performance Results of CMMI-Based Process Improvement (http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/results.html)

4. CMMI for Services Project website (Software Engineering Institute/Carnegie Mellon) (http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/models/CMMI-Services-status.html)

5. Yoo Y, Boland R.J. & Lyytinen, K. (2008) Digital Transformation of the AEC Industry: An Innovation Perspective (AECbytes Viewpoint #36 March 13, 2008)

6. NIST (2004) Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. IN Gallaher, M. P. O. C., A. C.; Dettbarn, J. L., Jr.; Gilday, L. T. (Ed.), National Institute of Standards and Technology.

7. NIBS – Facility Information Council (2007) The National BIM Standard Version 1 Part 1 – Overview, Principles and Methodologies

8. AIA-California Chapter (2007) Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide (Version 1)

9. McCuen, T & Suermann, P The Interactive Capability Maturity Model and 2007 AIA TAP BIM Award Winners (AECbytes Viewpoint #33 December 6, 2007).

Acknowledgements

Dr. Ruth Buys, VP Process & Quality Management, QinetiQ-NA, has helped me with suggestions for improving the content and with proof reading of this paper.

Aliya Razvi, B.Sc. Doctoral Student, Clinical Psychology and Program Administrator, University Scholars Program, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA. Aliya read and offered suggestions to improve readability and formatting.

Bilal Succar, Integrated Practice Consultant, ChangeAgents AEC, BIM Researcher, RMIT University, PhD Candidate, CIB, RAIA (Assoc) and IAI-AC. Bilal has read and offered suggestions and changes for content and readability.

The BIM Episodes: Episode 8

2008-02-18T23:24:32+11:00

Episode 8: Understanding BIM Stages

Many industry discussions affectionately expand on BIM’s far-reaching deliverables: seamless collaboration, construction sequencing, shareable databases and fully integrated project delivery. While all these possibilities are foreseen today and are becoming more readily accessible as we speak (type), it is important to understand the deployment road ahead. Such an understanding will help us focus on the task at hand, better allocate available resources and prepare for the BIM-flavoured future.

The previous episode has described the 1^st dimension of the BIM Framework – ‘horizontal axis’ representing AEC players and their deliverables. It is now time to introduce the 2^nddimension – ‘vertical axis’ of BIM adoption. This episode intends to identify deployment milestones or ‘stages’ that AEC players pass through on their way to fully integrated practices. There are three stages/milestones:

· BIM Stage 1: Object-based modelling

· BIM Stage 2: Model-based collaboration

· BIM Stage 3: Network-based integration

Note that each of these stages is further subdivided into sequential steps. What separates ‘stages’ from ‘steps’ is that BIM Stages are transformational or radical¹ changes while BIM Steps are incremental² ones within them. In this post, we’ll focus our attention on identifying the transformational stages within BIM Nodes. We’ll do that after briefly describing the Pre-BIM status which insistently prevails within the AEC industry.

The Pre-BIM Status:

At the Policy front, the Pre-BIM status is characterised by adversarial relationships as contractual arrangements encourage risk shedding and over-the wall interactions. Moving to the Process front, there are huge dependencies on 2D documentation to describe 3D reality with all the problems this entails. Communication between different Players is less than adequate and project teams dismantle as projects reach a conclusion. Technology investment is low and data exchanges suffer from severe lack of interoperability³ between software applications...this surely cannot continue!

2D to 3D migration....BIM Stage 1:

After being wholly dependent on hand sketches, CAD and 3D visualisations, an increasing number of companies decide to cross the innovation chasm and invest in the object-based BIM applications (Figure 8.1).

Figure 8.1: Crossing the Chasm by Geoffrey Moore

They quickly start to generate coordinated 2D documents and 3D visualisations from the BIM model but the parameter-rich model itself is not shared with other disciplines. Three-dimensional views and light-weight models (that may include object metadata but not active parameters - DWF, NWD, 3D PDF, KML files and the like) become the new phrases within a rejuvenated communication language. Through their adoption, these companies undergo ‘mild’ process change as they start generating a plethora of 3D views, quantities, specifications, what-if scenarios and other deliverables from the semantically-rich model. Since the BIM model is still single-disciplinary and the deliverables are mostly CAD-like documents, existing contractual relationships and liability issues persist....but not for long!

From modelling to collaboration...BIM Stage 2:

Two disciplines, each ‘owning’ a semantically-rich model, decide to collaborate. They exchange and share models/databases which may not include geometry (think of Gantt charts, assets and environmental databases as examples of shareable databases). The two companies may jointly co-author a single database (example using ‘worksets’ in Autodesk® Revit®), link two different proprietary formats (example linking Digital Project® to a Primavera® database) or exchange non-proprietary files (example IFC, CIS2 or SDNF files). This ‘interopation’ allows them to perform 4D time-studies, interdisciplinary clash detection and generate an impressive array of analysis-driven deliverables. It is here where ‘traditional’ contractual relationships, risk models and ‘tried and tested processes’ start to show signs of significant strain and – with the absence of clear policy guidelines - nascent imaginative solutions.

From collaboration to integration...BIM Stage 3:

This fulfillment of this stage is the compilation of all construction-efficiency dreams and BIM philosophies. At this stage, project lifecycle phases dissolve substantially and players interact in real-time to generate real benefits from increasingly virtual workflows. At this Stage, existing and fast improving technologies play enabling roles and one set of technologies play a pivotal role: the increasingly available Model Server, replication or other model-federating solutions. These specialised network-based technologies store, share and control multidisciplinary input/output from participating stakeholders. It is here where current contractual policies and project processes lose their sync with technological possibilities. Of course and over time, processes evolve and policies get developed to enable the full potential of semantically-rich models and externally references databases...it may be a long road ahead of us.

Figure 8.2: BIM Stages, a condensed view (download link at bottom of post)

The interesting thing about all these Stages is that necessary technology infrastructure currently exists or is being developed. Whether we’re discussing software, hardware or networks, all are emerging and maturing quite rapidly. Processes (albeit experimental) are starting to follow as innovative companies increasingly ally together and push the frontier. However, the biggest absentee is still the many Policy players (refer to classification in Episode 7) who are slow to react and generate the necessary guidelines, regulations, liability protection and educational programs necessary for systematic progress.

In summary

While Stage 1 only needs a BIM application and a champion and Stage 2 needs two players and the will to collaborate, Stage 3 needs much more than that. The Integrated Practice will need a systematic understanding followed by systematic consolidation of all relevant Technologies, Processes and Policies...It may be a long deployment road ahead of us but it’s surely a scenic drive!

Next Episode: understanding BIM Lenses

References:

1. Henderson, R. M. & Clark, K. B. (1990) Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9.

2. Taylor, J. & Levitt, R. E. (2005) Inter-organizational Knowledge Flow and Innovation Diffusion in Project-based Industries. 38th International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii, USA.

3. NIST (2004) Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. IN Gallaher, M. P. O. C., A. C.; Dettbarn, J. L., Jr.; Gilday, L. T. (Ed.), National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Download bim_3_stages_condensed_v1.0.png

The BIM Episodes: Episode 7

2008-02-02T16:10:53+11:00

Episode 7: Understanding BIM Nodes

The confusion in BIM discussions and implementations can be dramatically reduced by systematically analysing the larger-than-life concept. We’ll do that by subdividing Building Information Modelling into its basic components and then relate them back to each other in a – hopefully – meaningful and useful way.

As discussed in BIM Episode 6, there are three dimensions to every BIM discussion. The first dimension is what I term BIM Nodes – BIM circles if you wish – and it’s responsible for identifying industry’s stakeholders and their deliverables. The other two dimensions, BIM Stages and BIM Lenses, will be discussed in following posts.

So what do these BIM Nodes represent and why are they needed?

The Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry includes a great number of ‘industry players’: owners, designers, regulators, builders and product/service providers. These ‘industry players’ in turn generate even a greater number of ‘industry deliverables’: designs, specifications, tools, construction products and specialised services. With careful inspection, all these players and deliverables can be grouped into three identifiable yet overlapping circles (Figure 7.1):

· The BIM Policy circle includes all players responsible for generating standards, guidelines and contracts. These include AEC regulatory bodies, educational institutions and the like.

· The BIM Process circle includes all players directly responsible for delivering buildings and other construction products: schools, bridges, shopping centres, etc...These include owners, designers, contractors and whoever is involved in a project’s lifecycle.

· The BIM Technology group includes developers of tools necessary for the creation and management of building information models and other design-construction-operation technologies. These include software developers, equipment suppliers and product/service providers active within the AEC industry.

Figure 7.1: the BIM framework includes three interlocking nodes (circles)

Each circle includes a specific set of players who interact with each other and with players within other circles. As an example, Designers interact with Builders to generate Facilities– this is an internal interaction within the Process Node. Also Designers interact with Fire Authorities and other Regulatory Bodies to insure conformity with respective standards and codes – this is an external interaction between Process and Policy Nodes. Both types of interactions take the form of Push-Pull transfers between players (Figure 7.2). We’ll be discussing ‘product and knowledge transfers’ in other posts but for now consider AIs (Architect Instruction) and RFIs (Request For Information) as two examples of this push-pull behaviour.

Figure 7.2: Push-Pull interactions between industry players (External and Internal respectively)

BIM Nodes and sub-nodes not only interact but they also overlap. Overlapping occurs when players or groups work (or need to work) together to form a joint industry body (think of RAIA, IAI and similar organisations) or generate a joint industry deliverable. As an example, Policy and Technology circles overlap when their players work together to generate interoperability standards (IFCs are a striking example). Also, all three nodes overlap (or need to overlap) to generate National or International BIM Guidelines.

So really the importance of BIM Nodes – the first dimension of the BIM framework - lies in identifying interactions and overlaps between industry players. Once identified, it will be much easier to generate better modular manuals and more comprehensive BIM guidelines.

The BIM Episodes: Episode 6

2008-01-20T20:05:16+11:00

Episode 6: A systematic understanding of BIM

Building information Modelling can be a very difficult topic to define. Just try to discuss it with a colleague and - more probably than not - you'll end up discussing endlessly overlapping topics. For example, you start to discuss BIM's effcts on industry and you end up comparing software solutions. Or, the topic starts with how to collaborate around the digital model and the discussion shifts to argueing risk-shedding vs. risk-sharing, insurance coverage and design fees. It doesn’t stop there, if you try to explain to how a small-sized company typically migrates from 2D to 3D or implements a basic BIM tool and the conversation shifts uncontrollably to model-servers and complex integrated practices.

This ‘confusion’ is not only detected at individual practitioners' level but is omnipresent in industry presentations, guidelines, writings and specialised forums. Just Google the term BIM and read the countless informed and not-so-informed entries about it. To highlight this issue, try reading the below argument which I rephrased from six different highly informed sources:

BIM is a catalyst for change (Bernstein, 2005) poised to reduce industry’s fragmentation (CWIC, 2004), improve its efficiency/effectiveness (Hampson and Brandon, 2004) and lower its high costs of inadequate interoperability (NIST, 2004). BIM is a methodology to manage the essential building design and project data in digital format throughout the building’s life-cycle (Penttilä, 2006). Building information modelling is a new approach to describing and displaying the information required for the design, construction and operation of constructed facilities (CRC-CI, 2006)

Just by reading the bolded text of the above few sources (out of hundreds of definitions and assertions out there) and BIM is a sounding more like a super TLA – a belated Three Letter Acronym that defines nothing in particular. One is left wondering if BIM is something you can buy off the shelf? Is it a change process or a construction procedure? Is BIM a GSA requirement, an NBIMS guideline or what exactly? If it is all of the above then isn’t it true that the breadth of a definition is inversely proportional to its usefulness?

Figure 6.1: BIM's recurring themes

Faced with all this ‘BIM chatter’, AEC stakeholders will understandably find it difficult to pinpoint what they actually need to do to reap the promised benefits of BIM. The chatter causes the change process to sound more difficult, extended and complex than it should be...This need not be the case at all.

To clarify the BIM topic, a ‘systematic analysis’ of the BIM domain will need to be performed. This should hopefully yield a clear, methodical and fuller description of what BIM is, is NOT as well as how to implement it in an incremental and sustained fashion. To systematically analyse then understand a loosely-defined concept like BIM, we first need to subdivide it into its components and analyse the relationship between them. The next few BIM episodes will do just that.

Based on my ongoing research (academic and professional), I will attempt to simplify the discussion through ‘decomposing’ the BIM term into three complementary dimensions: BIM Nodes (players and deliverables), BIM Stages (evolutionary steps) and BIM Lenses (multidisciplinary analysis). I will later use these three dimensions to generate some BIM Steps – those elusive incremental steps needed to migrate from a 2D based workflow all the way towards an Integrated Practice.

Figure 6.2: BIM Framework: the three dimensions

To be continued; next Episode will discuss the first dimension - BIM Nodes

References:

Bernstein, P. (2005) Integrated Practice: It’s Not Just About the Technology, http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek05/tw0930/tw0930bp_notjusttech.cfm, last accessed on December 5, 2005

CRC-CI (2006) Open Specifications for BIM: Sydney Opera House Case Study. IN Mitchell, J. (Ed.) Delivery and Management of Built Assets. Brisbane, Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation (click here for PDF)

CWIC (2004) The Building Technology and Construction Industry Technology Roadmap. IN Dawson, A. (Ed.) Melbourne, Collaborative Working In Consortium.

Hampson, K. & Brandon, P. (2004) Construction 2020: A Vision of Australia's Property and Construction Industry. Australia, CRC Construction Innovation.

NIST (2004) Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. IN Gallaher, M. P. O. C., A. C.; Dettbarn, J. L., Jr.; Gilday, L. T. (Ed.), National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Penttilä, H. (2006) Describing The Changes In Architectural Information Technology To Understand Design Complexity And Free-Form Architectural Expression. ITcon, 11, 395-408.